Taking the Whys Seriously: Limitations of Counterfactual Explanations in Justification and Recourse
Counterfactual explanations (CEs) are widely used in explainable artificial intelligence (AI) to show how a model's outputs would change if the input features were manipulated. This technique is used for a range of tasks such as debugging models, explaining predictions, justifying decisions, and providing algorithmic recourse. In this paper, we explore the normative legitimacy of employing counterfactuals in real-life model deployment settings. We discuss the different stakes involved in these different purposes for which CEs are commonly employed, and find stricter requirements for justificat
Lineage graph
Paper → model → repo connections mined from source citations (Tier-1 exact match).
Why these links exist
Every edge carries a method, confidence, and the source snippet that justified it — so bad links are debuggable.
- PossiblePossibly related (embedding) · 53%Copilot tricked into telling reseachers how to hack itself →
- PossiblePossibly related (embedding) · 53%An adaptive agentic AI framework for counterfactual validation and adversarial lookahead in automated incident response - Springer Nature Link →
- LinkedLinked via arxiv author · 85%Mattia Cerrato →
“Taking the Whys Seriously: Limitations of Counterfactual Explanations in Justification and Recourse”
- LinkedLinked via arxiv author · 85%Otto Sahlgren →
“Taking the Whys Seriously: Limitations of Counterfactual Explanations in Justification and Recourse”
- LinkedLinked via arxiv author · 85%Xenia Heilmann →
“Taking the Whys Seriously: Limitations of Counterfactual Explanations in Justification and Recourse”
